Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2010 4:30:38 GMT -6
Posted: Dec. 23, 2010 Victim's family angry over clemency decision by Granholm By ED WHITE Associated Press DETROIT -- Relatives of a 19-year-old Detroit-area man fatally stabbed during a robbery in 1988 said Thursday they are shocked that Gov. Jennifer Granholm agreed to release a convicted killer from prison, despite a life sentence for first-degree murder. Anthony Puma said he and his siblings were never told that Matthew Makowski was seeking to have his sentence commuted and were unaware of an October public hearing by the Michigan parole board. "Our family is appalled, devastated," Puma, 38, of Southgate said Thursday, a day after Granholm followed the recommendation of the parole board. " I don't even know how this could happen. I thought life with no parole was life with no parole," Puma said. Pietro "Pete" Puma was fatally stabbed during a robbery in Dearborn. Authorities say Makowski did not participate in the attack but arranged the cash robbery with two other people. Makowski knew the victim and was at the hospital when he died, Anthony Puma said. "That guy used to play basketball in my backyard," Anthony Puma said. "He was sitting with my mom and my father crying at the hospital and wondering how someone could do this to Pete Puma. He was holding my mother's hand - who would do such a thing?" Corrections Department spokesman Russ Marlan said the Puma family should have been notified about Makowski's commutation request if their contact information was up to date. Because state government was closed, he had no access to details in the case Thursday. Parole hearings are posted in advance on the department's website. "Why would we register? It was life with no parole. I don't think my parents were on a registry," Anthony Puma said. In response to the family's comments, the governor's office was checking to determine "if and why" relatives were not notified about the hearing and the commutation process, spokeswoman Katie Carey said. Makowski, now 43, has been in prison for more than 20 years. He will remain in custody for several weeks until his parole is processed. Marlan said the parole board likely was influenced by Makowski's good record in prison and the fact that he didn't stab the victim. At least eight members, a majority, voted to recommend that his sentence be commuted to time served. Pete Puma's sister, Constance Puma, 51, of Portage, said Makowski was arrested after giving a eulogy at her brother's funeral and promising to find the killer. "This is a crime. This is a tragedy," she said of Makowski's release. "My mother is rolling over in her grave right now." The Wayne County prosecutor's office opposed the release. "Our sympathy certainly goes out to the family of the victim that believed the defendant's conviction ensured that he would remain in prison for the rest of his life," spokeswoman Maria Miller said. Anthony Puma said his deceased brother was one of six siblings. Their parents are deceased. "If he didn't mastermind this, my brother would not have been killed," Anthony Puma said of Makowski. Johnnie Fleming, who was convicted of stabbing Pete Puma, is serving a life sentence. Another man charged in the case was paroled in 1993. Read more: Victim's family angry over clemency decision by Granholm | freep.com | Detroit Free Press www.freep.com/article/20101223/NEWS15/101223072/Victim-s-family-angry-over-clemency-decision-by-Granholm#ixzz191WUsmlT
|
|
|
Post by uicipher on Dec 24, 2010 9:28:04 GMT -6
A murderer who gives a eulogy at the victims funeral is a special kind of scumbag. Michigan doesn't have the harshest drug laws in the country, however a nonviolent drug offenders many times serve more severe sentences than this POS. My guess is that his family is loaded because I can't find a shred of evidence as to why he was released other than being a "good" prisoner. However, had he been given the death penalty (which have never been an option in Michigan) there was nothing to stop the Governor from doing the same thing. We unfortunately live with a broken legal system where money can buy justice or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by uicipher on Dec 24, 2010 20:08:21 GMT -6
Just found this on CNN: "Governor regrets not informing victim's family before commuting killer" www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/24/new.york.governor.commute/index.html?hpt=T1This isn't anywhere near the same circumstances as the above case. It was a manslaughter conviction not a murder conviction*. However, it is another example of the executive subverting the judicial system**. I feel like there is an unhealthy pattern forming, because this system strikes me as completely arbitrary. Why does this guy get out in 5 months while some drug addicts rot for 25-life? *From an extremely limited amount of time looking at the case I'm not sure if I would have found him guilty... **I don't think this power is wrong in all circumstances, however it should be used only in very specific cases such as political prisoners; justice should be consistent instead of for sale.
|
|
|
Post by crappieboy on May 17, 2011 6:50:02 GMT -6
Too often families are confused, hurt, in shock, and over-whelmed to understand that there is a very good possiblity of parole. It's a shame that this is not made clear.
|
|
|
Post by mrbubble on May 20, 2011 19:45:37 GMT -6
Terrible case, but good find. I didn't include this case in my 2010 Michigan LWOP commutation thread.
The governor in Michigan is constitutionally required to report all commutations to the state Legislature. This is usually done in an end-of-year message published in the House and Senate legislative journals and are available online.
Makowski wasn't included in the 2010 commutations message. Unsure if ths was intentional or inadvertent. The relevant message is dated December 29, 2010
|
|
|
Post by carolyn on May 24, 2011 13:53:51 GMT -6
Yeap, proof in the pudding right there.
I always said it does not mean what it says. Maybe some just dont want to beleive it
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on May 25, 2011 8:27:54 GMT -6
Neither was "exectuion" in Texas in 1989.....(a certainty, no more than LWOP) What can happen to a state that votes in bleeding hearts... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuffFive dead young people... I would have no problem with a LAW, stating that no LWOP prisoner could EVER be granted clemency unless agreed to by the victims family. I wonder how long it will be before child rapist/murder Donald Beaty, who recieved a stay of execution this morning will be released by some soft-headed politition? It was a "stay" that started Mc Duff on his road to killing 5 more youths.
|
|
|
Post by mrbubble on May 25, 2011 16:02:57 GMT -6
At least with the DP, once the execution does happen, you can guarantee the inmate will never roam at large again.
With LWOP, since the "execution" of the sentence is ongoing and can be stopped at any time by the governor (in most states), you can never have that level of certainly until the inmate dies, of natural causes or otherwise.
Which is why LWOP is an inadequate substitute for the DP, it simply does not give anywhere near the same level of finality.
|
|
|
Post by moretoasts on May 26, 2011 1:51:51 GMT -6
no LWOP prisoner could EVER be granted clemency unless agreed to by the victims family. Remind me what actually happens in Iran. As usual you are more likely to watch what happens in backdated and repressive countries than evolving your standard of deciency and joining modern western democracies where you should belong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 8:11:20 GMT -6
no LWOP prisoner could EVER be granted clemency unless agreed to by the victims family. Remind me what actually happens in Iran. As usual you are more likely to watch what happens in backdated and repressive countries than evolving your standard of deciency and joining modern western democracies where you should belong Basically you are saying fu(k the victim's family and whatever they think, feel, expect. Leave it up to all you brilliant liberal thinkers that don't give one dam about the victim, their family or their friends. IOW, you are saying we know better than you do, so STFU and sit back and take it. Imagine if you treated the family and friends of people who died of disease like this. JUST TRY TO IMAGINE thinking that cancer, heart disease, aids needed to be rehabilitated and then given another chance at other people's loved ones. Try to imagine attempting to contain these diseases so they harm no one else and then telling the families that are left behind from these terrible diseases that they are too emotional and they don't deserve to have any thoughts on the matter that could help in the fight of these diseases. WELL THAT IS HOW YOU TREAT MVSs ALL THE TIME AND YOU EVEN GET SOME MVSs TO BELIEVE YOUR BULL. How very not liberal and caring of you. You can't see it. Well, you are blinded by your enlightened superficial goodness. Your kindness and caring are only for the murderers and not for the victims and their families. Please spare us the lip service of how you do care. I KNOW YOU REALLY DON'T. These are the same people that think that murderers should be released if 3 family members are willing to forgive. They don't specify which family members but there is the number 3. How about 6th cousins 3 times removed? BUT they don't think the family should matter if they don't want the murderer released. Holy Shyt the double standard is alive and well and has moved to protect murderers instead of controlling women.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 12:14:15 GMT -6
I would have no problem with a LAW, stating that no LWOP prisoner could EVER be granted clemency unless agreed to by the victims family. Hi George, I have trouble with this 'unless agreed to by the victim's family'. First off, there are many cases where the victim's family and the murderer's family are one and the same. I don't think that the murderer's family should have any say in whether he's (she's) released. But, more importantly, what the victim's family thinks, IMO, should have no bearing, because *if* such is allowed, then obviously those ones who are convinced the murderer is changed, deserves another chance, etc. will have as much say as those of us (yes, I'm included) who would not grant clemency under any circumstances save innocence. Then again, IMO, the law should be absolute, so NO MVS has to fight for what should be our right and for the rights of any future potential murder victims because we choose to release murderers back onto our streets every day.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on May 26, 2011 12:25:28 GMT -6
no LWOP prisoner could EVER be granted clemency unless agreed to by the victims family. Remind me what actually happens in Iran. As usual you are more likely to watch what happens in backdated and repressive countries than evolving your standard of deciency and joining modern western democracies where you should belong What happens in Iran? Backdated and repressive countries? Standard of deciency? Modern western democracies? This backwater term may escape your delicate senses, but, "gobbeldigook". Do we, in America, a true "standard of deciency", "modern western democracy", no longer care about our children? Do they care more or less in Iran, or any other country? Countries who insure that the beasts who prey on their weakest citizens (specifically) by executing the unbelievably dangerous pigs..... are the essence....the definition of a modern, caring, decient society. Countries that allow these beasts to continue killing their citizens by outlawing the only sure method on insuring that they will never do it again....(execution)... are the true uncareing, backwards, immoral countrys. You go Greggsmom!!! Glad you're my friend!
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on May 26, 2011 12:36:31 GMT -6
I would have no problem with a LAW, stating that no LWOP prisoner could EVER be granted clemency unless agreed to by the victims family. Hi George, I have trouble with this 'unless agreed to by the victim's family'. First off, there are many cases where the victim's family and the murderer's family are one and the same. I don't think that the murderer's family should have any say in whether he's (she's) released. But, more importantly, what the victim's family thinks, IMO, should have no bearing, because *if* such is allowed, then obviously those ones who are convinced the murderer is changed, deserves another chance, etc. will have as much say as those of us (yes, I'm included) who would not grant clemency under any circumstances save innocence. Then again, IMO, the law should be absolute, so NO MVS has to fight for what should be our right and for the rights of any future potential murder victims because we choose to release murderers back onto our streets every day. Can't disagree.....nosir....just can't. Guess what I meant, was that I wouldn't even consider releasing them without the immeadiate families cooperation and agreement FIRST. THEN, the normal progression of parole or clemency could be addressed. I'm with you on this one....."clemency" just makes me nuts. The one doing the "clemency-ing" will not likely, be the one to pay for releasing the beast. WE will.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 12, 2011 16:15:39 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 7:16:53 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters. You have reached the STFU stage. You are like a broken record. You just keep saying MVSs BAD, they don't matter and they are the ones that are hurting society. Murderers GOOD, need many chances and society has to accept this. Your mission is stupid. You are trying your hardest to victimize people again and you aren't succeeding. How is your little plan of making MVSs all look like they are the crazy ones and your murderer gods are the sane ones, working out? Anyone out there buying this silly little radical anti ploy? ;D If you are, which would you rather meet up with an angry, mentally unstable, vengeful MVS or a supposed rehabiltitated murdererr
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 7:28:27 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters. I've never seen this definition of punishment before. Dictionaries describe punishment thusly: to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation, to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 7:37:00 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters. You have reached the STFU stage. You are like a broken record. You just keep saying MVSs BAD, they don't matter and they are the ones that are hurting society. Murderers GOOD, need many chances and society has to accept this. Your mission is stupid. You are trying your hardest to victimize people again and you aren't succeeding. How is your little plan of making MVSs all look like they are the crazy ones and your murderer gods are the sane ones, working out? Anyone out there buying this silly little radical anti ploy? ;D If you are, which would you rather meet up with an angry, mentally unstable, vengeful MVS or a supposed rehabiltitated murdererr ................... you forgot [glow=yellow,2,300]productive[/glow]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 7:47:02 GMT -6
You have reached the STFU stage. You are like a broken record. You just keep saying MVSs BAD, they don't matter and they are the ones that are hurting society. Murderers GOOD, need many chances and society has to accept this. Your mission is stupid. You are trying your hardest to victimize people again and you aren't succeeding. How is your little plan of making MVSs all look like they are the crazy ones and your murderer gods are the sane ones, working out? Anyone out there buying this silly little radical anti ploy? ;D If you are, which would you rather meet up with an angry, mentally unstable, vengeful MVS or a supposed rehabiltitated murdererr ................... you forgot [glow=yellow,2,300]productive[/glow] OOOOOO My bad!! You are in fine smart a$$ form for a Monday morning
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 13, 2011 8:39:35 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters. What may sound harsh, you have no business in the clemency hearings, unless your the inmate, his family, a victim of, or part of the parole board. The impact of the offender upon victims is very much a part of the whole portfolio.. Which is all very revelent factor's as to deciding parole.. a serious matter first being society as a whole......
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jun 13, 2011 9:05:23 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters. Whilst I can understand that the family of the victim are a whole lot less likely to be objective in that process, neither would I want things to get to where they are in the UK. The thugs and murderers are laughing at us here, FFS even murdering illegal immigrants are successfully using the human rights act to argue that deportation is against their human right to family even based on having a pet fooking cat here in the uK in one reported example. Both extremes in my opinion need avoiding.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jun 13, 2011 10:48:58 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters. You have reached the STFU stage. OMG! That is classic. I can totally see that on a t-shirt Seriously, you should copyright that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 15:01:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 13, 2011 15:37:26 GMT -6
I like the Made in the USA stamp across the site, kinda fits too...
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Oct 15, 2011 13:22:49 GMT -6
[As usual you are more likely to watch what happens in backdated and repressive countries than evolving your standard of deciency and joining modern western democracies where you should belong Murder is never a decent thing. Evolution will not take anyone to a place where murder is a decent thing; decay will.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 19, 2011 12:51:01 GMT -6
I would have no problem with a LAW, stating that no LWOP prisoner could EVER be granted clemency unless agreed to by the victims family. Hi George, I have trouble with this 'unless agreed to by the victim's family'. First off, there are many cases where the victim's family and the murderer's family are one and the same. I don't think that the murderer's family should have any say in whether he's (she's) released. But, more importantly, what the victim's family thinks, IMO, should have no bearing, because *if* such is allowed, then obviously those ones who are convinced the murderer is changed, deserves another chance, etc. will have as much say as those of us (yes, I'm included) who would not grant clemency under any circumstances save innocence. Then again, IMO, the law should be absolute, so NO MVS has to fight for what should be our right and for the rights of any future potential murder victims because we choose to release murderers back onto our streets every day. Oh hell, I hate it when this happens....I agree with you twice in the SAME DAY! I reread my statement.....I can easily see how it could be misinterpreted.. I meant that IF some misguided parole board was willing to release them....which in ALL cases of LWOP, I would NOT.... the parole possibility should go to the victims families next for approuval. The law is no less absolute because it gives different sentences for ALL crimes...than if it gave the same sentence for all crimes....or just murder. At least I would assure that some of the most dangerous....actually ALL of the most dangerous would never be alive to kill again. You would not. Greggsmom.....you crack me up.....LOVEYA amiga Soooo glad we're on the same side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 5:08:57 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters. I very much appreciate the concept of rehabilitation, but, I don't understand how civil court ideals have pervasively entered our criminal courts system. The principle behind civil proceedings is to be made whole. If someone crashes into your car, you sue for the amount to repair it....no more unless the act was willful or wanton. The criminal court system has been corrupted by the same concept..."paying debt to society". Needles, electric chairs, gas chambers and prisons are not there to make society whole....that is a concept that can't be fulfilled. How can a price be attributed to a murder? How can a spouse be made whole? Victims of crime are members of society also. The criminal court system is intended to punish and deter ...The concept "make whole" should not apply. That is where we have gone wrong. If a criminal is rehabilitated, then society is "made whole" and he could become a productive member if released. Bully for the rehabilitated criminal, but, he still must be punished for his crime and serve out his sentence to the fullest extent. Why have prisons and sentences at all? Confine all convicts to institutions and when the doctors feel he/she is rehabilitated, release them. Applying the "make whole" principle, holding this convict for a single day past rehabilitation would consist of torture. Example: If a mass-murderer is declared rehabilitated after one week in prison, he should be released or issued clemency. In my opinion, governors should only be permitted to grant clemency or commutations if evidence supports the wavers. ie: after DNA profiling was discovered and some convicted were exonerated, Prosecutorial misconduct. It should never be permitted because the convice has been rehabilitated and the governor disagrees with the jury or judges' sentences nor even if the victim's family wants it. The family wishes should only be considered after the first date of parole. If they want the convict released, then fine, but not prior to his/her minimum sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 7, 2013 9:29:26 GMT -6
The criminal court system is intended to punish and deter ...The concept "make whole" should not apply. That is where we have gone wrong. If a criminal is rehabilitated, then society is "made whole" and he could become a productive member if released. Bully for the rehabilitated criminal, but, he still must be punished for his crime and serve out his sentence to the fullest extent. Why have prisons and sentences at all? Confine all convicts to institutions and when the doctors feel he/she is rehabilitated, release them. Applying the "make whole" principle, holding this convict for a single day past rehabilitation would consist of torture. Example:If a mass-murderer is declared rehabilitated after one week in prison, he should be released or issued clemency. Did you change your mind somewhere in the middle of this paragraph?
|
|
|
Post by Woody on Jan 19, 2014 4:09:35 GMT -6
I like the Made in the USA stamp across the site, kinda fits too... Fits perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 15, 2014 17:34:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Woody on Feb 18, 2014 4:32:56 GMT -6
|
|